A criminal justice system is a tool for ensuring and maintaining public order and safety. First of all, it is used to punish those guilty of committing various crimes and to prevent their reoccurrence. However, it is also important that the criminal justice system should also provide all members of society with a fair justice process. In this regard, the key factor is balancing the rights of the public and accused persons, which is ensured by taking into account all aspects affecting the sentence. The criminal justice system must protect the public from potential crimes by adequately punishing the criminals according to their guilt.
Nevertheless, there are many factors that influence the assessment of guilt and the necessary punishment of an accused. The most controversial factors that complicate fair sentencing within the criminal justice system are emotional and behavioral abnormalities. This paper argues that modern psychopathy research based on Robert Hare’sHare’s works can help to improve the criminal justice system by helping the court make more accurate decisions about cases where psychopathy may be a factor.
The consideration of psychopathy in the justice process can be crucial not only for individual cases but also for the development of the criminal justice system as a whole. The presence of signs of psychopathy may be the basis for aggravating the sentence for the accused or determining compulsory treatment. In this case, the research determines the criteria for defining criminal behavior more accurately and makes an adequate sentence. In turn, prescribing the correct punishment or approach for rehabilitation can positively influence the future of a person’s behavior, ensuring the safety of society. Ignoring psychopathy in the justice process can result in ineffectiveness of the decision made and the threat of re-crime. However, this approach can also lead to misjudgment and false convictions.
Research on psychopathy is the foundation for its effective application within the criminal justice system. Since the correct assessment of the emotional and behavioral characteristics of the accused has direct consequences not only for the individual’s fate but also for the safety of society, the specialists taking part in it must be exceptional professionals (Zinger & Forth, 1998). However, when using the terms of psychopathy in court, there are many difficulties associated with insufficient research and consistency, starting with taxonomy (Zinger & Forth, 1998). This factor can lead to incorrect judgments based on a misleading assessment of psychopathic criteria in relation to the accused person. This circumstance complicates the effective use of these terms within the framework of a fair and publically safe system of criminal justice.
While psychopathic criteria are already being actively used in sentencing offenders, more detailed research can improve the effectiveness and accuracy of the assessment. In particular, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist can be used as a unified tool for an independent evaluation of the state of the accused (Brazil & Forth, 2016). However, in a broader context, a controversy arises between psychopathy itself and public safety.
Mackay (1991) notes that the establishment of psychopathy in court is conducted not only from a medical but also a legal point of view, therefore “the ”insane” person is detained in the same way as the convicted criminal who is suffering from a mental illness” (p. 87). The accused is judged according to the criteria of common sense and society of mentally healthy people. At the same time, Holmes (1991) emphasizes that the “absence of conscience fails to merit the public ascription of illness” (p. 81). In this situation, one should talk about the criminal justice system, which considers mental health as the main criterion for determining crime. Probably more specific judgments should be applied based on the characteristics of people, which cannot be defined as ”normal”.
References
Brazil, K. J., & Forth, A. E. (2016). Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL). In V. Zeigler-Hill, & T. K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1-5). Springer. Web.
Holmes, C. A. (1991). Psychopathic disorder: A category mistake?. Journal of Medical Ethics, 17(2), 77–85. Web.
Mackay, I. (1991). Psychopathic disorder: A category mistake? A legal response to Colin Holmes. Journal of Medical Ethics, 17(2), 86–88. Web.
Zinger, I., & Forth, A. E. (1998). Psychopathy and Canadian criminal proceedings: The potential for human rights abuses. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 40(3), 237–276. Web.